Archive for September 2011

A new Stefan Molyneux video got me thinking about the absurdity of some of the questions I (we) have to deal with when trying to describe my (our) ideal world. Usually, I talk about what conclusions I’ve drawn from applying my principles of morality consistently and universally. “When you apply the non-aggression principle universally and follow it to its logical conclusions, these things (x, y, z,) happen.” The response is typically the same – not “why” but “how.” No one seems to care about the why. In other words, the typical response disregards the morality of the situation and instead fixates only on the practicality.

Granted, I came to my conclusions through efficiency (practicality) reasoning back in 2005 so I can sympathize with these responses, but the difference is, I never pushed back against a voluntary society using practicality as my weapon. Instead, my journey was through my economics program at George Mason and my voracious self-learning. The efficiency perspective is what I was training in. It took some time for me to get there simply because I needed to obtain the economic knowledge necessary to realize the efficiencies of markets across ALL goods and services. And once I got there, I remained there. Shortly thereafter I started to delve into the moral reasons for my practical beliefs.

What I’m talking about here is the “how” push back that we frequently get when talking about the immorality of the initiation of force. “But, but, how will children get education?” “But who will build the roads?” “How will our food get inspected?”

The absurdity of such questions becomes more and more evident as I continue to learn and have conversations with people. This is what brought me to the new Molyneux video. Stefan brings up most of the points I’ve used in the past. “You believe children are being adequately educated now?” He also uses the classic slavery analogy that I’ve used as well. “It doesn’t matter who will farm and pick cotton after slavery is abolished. All that matters is that we get rid of slavery because it is evil and immoral.” “I can’t tell you what jobs the freed slaves will get. It doesn’t matter.”

The “it doesn’t matter” line of reasoning might work on some people, but I’m willing to bet that it fails precisely because most people want to hear about the “how.” They seem to care less about the “why.”

There was one “how” question that Stefan brought up in the video that really illustrates the absurdity in all the “how” questions. “How will we be protected in a free society? Who will protect my property?” It’s difficult to take that question seriously. As Stefan points out, could we do any worse than being robbed of around 40 to 50% of our earnings each year while the remaining earnings we are “allowed” to keep is continually inflated away through the actions of the Federal Reserve? All the while our future earnings are stolen through massive debts incurred in our name but without our consent.

“But who will protect my property?” Are you kidding me? In a free society, would you voluntarily pay for the protection “services” you get now? Would you pay for someone to steal nearly half of your earnings outright, inflate away the rest of your purchasing power, and steal your future earnings through debt you never consented to? No voluntary service could offer that protection plan and even attract one customer. The point is, it can’t get worse than the extortion racket we have now. Not in a voluntary society.

I’ll repeat myself. The government can’t protect your property by first stealing half of it. It cannot protect your money by forcing you to use a currency it counterfeits at will. Rid yourself of the “how.” Like Stefan said, it really doesn’t matter.